2025 (1) TMI 10 - HC - Money Laundering

Money laundering accused denied bail due to deep-rooted conspiracy causing huge financial loss to state exchequer

Anwar Dhebar Versus State Of Chhattisgarh.

The Chhattisgarh HC denied bail to an applicant charged with money laundering involving illegal bribes and controlling state departments. The court noted ... Seeking grant of bail - Money Laundering - collecting illegal bribes and controlling the high level management of important State Departments and State Public Sector undertakings - HELD THAT:- In the case in hand, the factors enumerating in the case which should be taken in consideration while granting or refusing bail in a non-bailable case are that there are three charge sheets filed against the applicant in relation to the same allegations, 457 witnesses have been cited and more than 13,000 pages have been filed before the Special Court (PC) Raipur. It is trite that the court while considering an application seeking bail, is not required to weigh the evidence collected by the investigating agency meticulously, nonetheless, the court should keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence collected in support thereof, the severity of the punishment prescribed for the alleged offences, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witness being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State etc. Though, the findings recorded by the Court while granting or refusing bail would be tentative in nature, nonetheless the Court is expected to express prima facie opinion for granting or refusing to grant bail which would demonstrate an application of mind, particularly dealing with the economic offences - In the present case, the applicant was involved in the criminal acts of the syndicate and that he received commission from the liquor suppliers. However, no recovery of unaccounted money has been made in this regard and as per the investigating agency, the investigation is pending, hence, a conclusive determination of their role is yet to be made. As has been held in catena of decisions, the economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. Undoubtedly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. There is no denial to the fact that the economic offences constitute a separate class of their own, but trite it is that presumption of innocence is one of the bedrocks on which the criminal jurisprudence rests. Time and again, Apex Court has reiterated the need to integrate the right of investigating agencies to have effective interrogation of the accused with the right of liberty of the accused. In the instant case, the offence as alleged against the accused persons is very serious involving deep-rooted planning in which, huge financial loss is caused to the State exchequer. The gravity for the said purpose will have to be gathered from the facts and circumstances arising in each case. Keeping in view the consequences that would befall on the society in cases of financial irregularities, it has been held that even economic offences would fall under the category of 'grave offence' and in such circumstance while considering the application for bail in such matters, the Court will have to deal with the same, being sensitive to the nature of allegation made against the accused - In that regard what is also to be kept in perspective is that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case but the consideration will have to be on case-to-case basis on the facts involved therein. Conclusion - The applicant's bail application was denied due to the gravity of the charges and the potential risks associated with his release. The court found sufficient grounds to believe that the applicant was involved in a criminal syndicate, justifying further judicial proceedings. The prayer for grant of bail to the applicant is liable to be rejected and it is hereby rejected. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. having regard to the nature of allegations, stage of investigation/trial, period of custody and the 'triple/tripod' test (flight risk; tampering with evidence; influencing witnesses). 2. Whether the fact that certain proceedings/ECIRs/prosecution complaints before other agencies/courts were quashed or stayed vitiates the FIR under consideration or mandates bail. 3. Whether non-furnishing or defective furnishing of written grounds of arrest (Article 22(1) and statutory requirements) vitiates the arrest/remand and impacts entitlement to bail. 4. Whether parity with co-accused who obtained interim protection or bail is a ground for granting bail to the applicant. 5. Reliability and legal value of confessions/statements of co-accused (including retracted statements) for denying bail. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - I. Entitlement to Regular Bail (Section 439 Cr.P.C., triple test and economic offences) Legal framework: Bail jurisprudence requires consideration of prima facie grounds, nature and gravity of charge, severity of punishment, risk of absconding, tampering/influencing witnesses and other relevant factors; triple test (flight risk, tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses) is a key practical tool. Economic offences are treated seriously and may be a separate class for bail considerations, but no absolute bar to bail exists. Precedent treatment: The Court followed and applied established Supreme Court principles (including that grant of bail is rule and refusal exception; seriousness of economic offences to be weighed; triple test and factors in Amarmani Tripathi and related jurisprudence). Cases cited were used to emphasize both protection of liberty and gravity of economic crimes. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court evaluated prosecution material (multiple charge-sheets, 457 witnesses, ~13,000 pages), ongoing investigation and alleged large estimated proceeds. It held that (a) economic offences here are grave with alleged huge loss to State exchequer; (b) investigation is substantial and continuing though some aspects are incomplete; (c) triple test must be satisfied to deny bail and is a relevant but not exhaustive yardstick; (d) mere period of custody is not determinative where gravity and prima facie material exist. The Court undertook a tentative, not final, appraisal of evidence and role of the applicant in the alleged syndicate to reach a prima facie satisfaction against bail. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Courts must balance presumption of innocence with gravity of economic offences; where charge-sheet and voluminous material disclose prima facie involvement in deep-rooted economic conspiracy causing large public loss, bail may be refused despite custodial period. Obiter - general observations on speedier trial obligations and technological threats in economic offences. Conclusion: Bail on merits was refused; the Court was not inclined to grant regular bail given prima facie satisfaction about applicant's central role, ongoing investigation and gravity of offences notwithstanding prior custodial period. II. Effect of Quashed/Stayed Proceedings Before Other Agencies on Validity of Current FIR Legal framework: Validity of an FIR for cognizable offences is to be judged on its own material; quashing of ancillary proceedings by other forums does not automatically invalidate independently registered FIRs unless the genesis of FIR is shown to be vitiated. Precedent treatment: The Court acknowledged earlier quashment orders in relation to certain ED/ECIR/complaints by higher courts but treated those as distinct and left open their legal effect vis-à-vis present charges; reliance on precedent that a prior quash does not ipso facto entitle bail in separate proceedings unless illegality infects the FIR under consideration. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted the applicant's submissions that the ACB FIR is based on material originating from an allegedly illegal ED investigation/ECIR. However, on perusal, the Court found prima facie material collected by the State (including IT and other records) supporting cognizable allegations and concluded that the quashing of some ED proceedings did not conclusively vitiate the ACB FIR at this stage. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Quashing of related proceedings elsewhere does not automatically mandate bail or nullify FIR unless specific illegality in genesis of the impugned FIR is established on available material. Obiter - observations on investigatory overlap and potential pick-and-choose approach by agencies require trial-stage scrutiny. Conclusion: The prior quash/stay did not entitle the applicant to bail; the FIR stands for trial subject to further challenge at appropriate stages. III. Requirement to Furnish Written Grounds of Arrest (Article 22(1) and statutory mandates) Legal framework: Article 22(1) and statutory provisions require that an arrested person be informed of grounds of arrest; authoritative precedents require furnishing written grounds (or edited redacted copy) as a matter of course to enable challenge/remedies. Precedent treatment: The Court recognized binding precedents holding that mere oral recital of grounds or proforma 'reasons' may be inadequate and that written grounds must convey basic facts personal to the accused; those authorities were treated as binding guidance on constitutional mandate. Interpretation and reasoning: Although the applicant alleged defective communication of grounds of arrest, the Court examined arrest memos and surrounding facts and observed the legal principle that non-furnishing of written grounds can vitiate the arrest and remand. However, the Court did not find this ground sufficient, on the record before it, to mandate bail in the present matter given prima facie material and other considerations. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The obligation to furnish written grounds of arrest is constitutionally sacrosanct and non-compliance may vitiate detention; courts must insist on meaningful written communication. Obiter - procedural redress and practical modes (redaction, acknowledgement) discussed. Conclusion: While legal obligation remains paramount, the particular contention did not, on available material, warrant grant of bail in the instant case. IV. Parity with Co-accused and Effect of Interim Protections Granted to Others Legal framework: Principle of parity requires equal treatment of similarly situated accused, but parity is fact-sensitive and depends on role and evidence against each accused. Precedent treatment: Court applied established principle that parity cannot be mechanically applied; co-accused relief does not automatically confer like relief where roles and evidence differ. Interpretation and reasoning: Although some co-accused obtained interim protection or bail, the Court noted the applicant's alleged leadership role and differing material against him. The Court concluded that parity did not favour the applicant because his role and the evidence adduced against him were prima facie more incriminating. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Parity principles are inapplicable where material and role of accused materially differ. Obiter - examples of co-accused outcomes and limits of parity doctrine. Conclusion: Parity with co-accused did not justify bail in view of distinctions in role and evidence. V. Reliability and Role of Co-accused Statements (including retracted statements) in Bail Consideration Legal framework: Statements/confessions of co-accused are weak evidence; retracted statements reduce reliability and require corroboration; at bail stage courts may tentatively assess reliability but should not conduct mini-trials. Precedent treatment: The Court relied on authority holding that retracted/confessional statements are admissible but of weak evidentiary value and require corroboration before being treated as substantive proof. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court acknowledged that several prosecution statements were retracted and that such retraction raises reliability issues. Nonetheless, the Court considered the totality of other materials (digital records, IT data, charge-sheets) and held that retraction did not eliminate prima facie material pointing to the applicant's involvement; thus the retracted statements weakened but did not negate the prosecution's prima facie case for bail-denial. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Retracted/co-accused statements are of questionable reliability and require corroboration; their existence alone is insufficient to deny bail if not supported by independent material. Obiter - guidance on assessing retracted statements and need for corroboration at trial. Conclusion: Retracted statements diminished reliance on those statements, but other prima facie material sufficed for the Court to refuse bail. FINAL CONCLUSION The Court refused the application for regular bail: balancing presumption of innocence and liberty against the serious, voluminous and ongoing investigation into alleged large-scale economic corruption and the Court's prima facie satisfaction regarding the applicant's central role, the application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was rejected. The legal principles on grounds of arrest, treatment of co-accused statements, parity and triple test were reaffirmed as applied to the facts.